Proof, evidence, belief, faith

[BigPapaVol]

If this is true, then a full 120 million of us believe man was fashioned out of dust and divine breath, by the hand of an almighty God, in a garden with a talking snake, in the year 4008 BC. A more recent poll showed 1 in 4 americans believed Jesus would return in the year 2007, and 46% of evangelicals believed it was somewhat likely.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/208/story_20828_1.html

I was yanking your chain about the stats. Almost all of the religious focused polling "can you believe this stat" are absolute garbage.

The paragraph that I kept here is complete trash. There is no link at all from what you quoted and this paragraph.

There is no humanly possible way that 25% believed Jesus would return last year and the 46% number is even more silly. Can you imagine the disastrous wording of the questions that yielded those results.

 

[rjd970]

It is my spiritual home base but I don't believe every word of the new testament nor accept every tenet of Christianity.

So do you consider yourself Christian? At a minimum, this would require you believe Jesus died for your sins and a walked out of his tomb 3 days after being whipped, stabbed, and crucified.

I view different religions as different interpretations of spirituality and to me they are all much more compatible than in conflict.

How did you come to that conclusion? The Bible says Jesus was the son of God and through him is the only way to heaven. The Qur'an says Jesus wasn't divine and all unbelievers are going to hell.

This leaves about as much room for compromise as a coin toss.

Organized religion is but one part of a discussion of a "creator". To attack some aspects of one religion misses the point of arguing science as explainer vs. including the notion of a creator in the explanation.

This is where the hangup is. Science doesn't rule out a creator, it simply says there is no evidence for it. Religion not only claims a creator, it also knows what name he should be called, answers prayers, and has a vested interest in our day-to-day activities.

I find many of the arguments against a creator resort to mocking specific tenets of a specific religion rather than addressing the more fundamental issue.

This, to me, is the persecution card. Somebody that doesn't believe in a creator is in the minority, at least in this country. The fundamental issue is addressed. Science doesn't rule out a creator, religion says it is definitionally so.

By dismissing a creator out of hand because they cannot prove one's existence, they adopt a belief system just as those that believe in a creator do. That is the point many are trying to make in this thread.

Bertrand Russell's famous teapot challenge is the perfect retort to this line of thinking:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If there has ever been a efficacious response to this, I am unaware of it.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Bertrand Russell's famous teapot challenge is the perfect retort to this line of thinking:



If there has ever been a efficacious response to this, I am unaware of it.

Here's my response:

It is incumbent upon no person to make Bertrand believe anything. Bertrand has to make his own decisions about where he came from. How he comes to those conclusions is up to him. Nobody is claiming that he is stupid for doubting religion or things that he can't empirically prove. His is a practical point.

On the other hand, he's the one calling those who believe in spirituality as prone to talking nonsense. Hence the burden is on him to validate that I am nonsensical for believing in something that he cannot explain.

 

[rjd970]

I was yanking your chain about the stats. Almost all of the religious focused polling "can you believe this stat" are absolute garbage.

The paragraph that I kept here is complete trash. There is no link at all from what you quoted and this paragraph.

There is no humanly possible way that 25% believed Jesus would return last year and the 46% number is even more silly. Can you imagine the disastrous wording of the questions that yielded those results.

Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it is trash. 55% believe the events described in the Bible are literally true. That translates into 120 million american adults (20+ years old). I detailed the literal story of creation told in Genesis. How does this not compute?

Furthermore, you can read the question and results right here, instead of blindly asserting it to disasterous wording:

"I'm going to read you a list of items that may or may not happen in the year 2007. For each one, please tell me if it is very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or not at all likely to happen in the year 2007. In 2007, how likely is it that [see below]? Is this very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or not at all likely to happen in 2007?"

"Jesus Christ will return to earth"

Very Likely/Somewhat
Likely - 25%

Not Too
Likely/Not at
All - 67%

Likely Unsure - 8%

12/12-14/06

http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm

 

[rjd970]

Here's my response:

It is incumbent upon no person to make Bertrand believe anything. Bertrand has to make his own decisions about where he came from. How he comes to those conclusions is up to him. Nobody is claiming that he is stupid for doubting religion or things that he can't empirically prove. His is a practical point.

On the other hand, he's the one calling those who believe in spirituality as prone to talking nonsense. Hence the burden is on him to validate that I am nonsensical for believing in something that he cannot explain.

That would be nice if you actually responded to the challenge. It is impossible to disprove his teapot theory, so it is reasonable to assume it exists? Do you believe in orbiting teapots? Would you say that somebody who does believe in orbiting teapots is delusional?

It is impossible disprove God, so it is reasonable to assume he exists?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

That would be nice if you actually responded to the challenge. It is impossible to disprove his teapot theory, so it is reasonable to assume it exists? Do you believe in orbiting teapots?

It is impossible disprove God, so it is reasonable to assume he exists?

You seem fairly passionate about all of this.........

Any particular reason?

 

[volinbham]

That would be nice if you actually responded to the challenge. It is impossible to disprove his teapot theory, so it is reasonable to assume it exists? Do you believe in orbiting teapots? Would you say that somebody who does believe in orbiting teapots is delusional?

It is impossible disprove God, so it is reasonable to assume he exists?

Again, there is no evidence of the teapot whatsoever. There is a history of mankind that shows again and again a human trait of spirtuality and belief in a creator of some form or fashion. Clearly that is not proof but it is an observable piece of evidence that one might exist.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The teapot is not in space because it would not survive breaking the atmosphere.

 

[JZVOL]

Don Piper died (legally) and went to Heaven. He then came back to life, he has an eyewitness account. I mean what more proof do you need?

Don Piper Ministries

 

[BigPapaVol]

That would be nice if you actually responded to the challenge. It is impossible to disprove his teapot theory, so it is reasonable to assume it exists? Do you believe in orbiting teapots? Would you say that somebody who does believe in orbiting teapots is delusional?

It is impossible disprove God, so it is reasonable to assume he exists?

There is no challenge in Bertrand's statement. I made it plain that nobody owes him an answer that he must use his own wits to find.

Again, your implication that evidence of God is nonexistent is wrong. That's the fallacy of the teapot. There is ample evidence throughout the annals of man of belief in a divinity.

Second, nobody is calling you or Bertrand delusional for disbelief. In fact, you and Bertrand are doing the namecalling.

 

[volinbham]

So do you consider yourself Christian? At a minimum, this would require you believe Jesus died for your sins and a walked out of his tomb 3 days after being whipped, stabbed, and crucified.

How did you come to that conclusion? The Bible says Jesus was the son of God and through him is the only way to heaven. The Qur'an says Jesus wasn't divine and all unbelievers are going to hell.

I'll take these two together. I reached the conclusion based on the history of how all these religions evolved. Much in organized religion is historical artifact designed to promote the religion - I understand that. However, there is an underlying consistency regarding a creator and some existence beyond earthly existence. I was exposed to this primarily through Christianity. My Jesus is equivalent to a Hindu's religious belief etc. I don't get hung up on the narrative's details but instead focus on the underlying message.

This leaves about as much room for compromise as a coin toss.

Disagree - you continue to argue at the organized religion level.

This is where the hangup is. Science doesn't rule out a creator, it simply says there is no evidence for it. Religion not only claims a creator, it also knows what name he should be called, answers prayers, and has a vested interest in our day-to-day activities.

If you don't believe some science advocates don't rule out a creator then you aren't paying attention. Also, they are ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit their worldview of what evidence is. It's a bit tautalogical. "I see no evidence of God because what I observe must have a physiological or natural cause..." If the fundamental belief is that natural science will ultimately explain all phenomena then the scientist will never see evidence of a creator. This is a belief system bias. Again, the Hadron experiment takes on this perspective for some - proving that natural science is the reason we are here.



This, to me, is the persecution card. Somebody that doesn't believe in a creator is in the minority, at least in this country. The fundamental issue is addressed. Science doesn't rule out a creator, religion says it is definitionally so.

This argument persecutes no one. Minority or majority is irrelevant. To argue that your perspective is not necessarily truth but rather a belief system rooted in empiricism or positivism is not persecution.

Bertrand Russell's famous teapot challenge is the perfect retort to this line of thinking:



If there has ever been a efficacious response to this, I am unaware of it.

See comments in earlier post on Russell.